a world of difference

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Times: Spielberg duel loyalties

I the NYTIMES' review on Spielberg's latest film "Munich", which the critic labeled a, "slammin' entertainment filled with dazzling set pieces and geometric camerawork", one sentence struck me:..Nothing if not conversational, "Munich" is organized around three crucial dialogues: Meir's discussion of vengeance with her advisers, which ends with her declaration that every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values; a brief discussion between Avner and a Palestinian who predicts Israel's defeat; and, finally, a bitter encounter between two Israelis who fail to find common ground even in that multicultural utopia known as Brooklyn. With its dead-eye view of Lower Manhattan and the twin towers, this scene makes clear (as if there was any doubt) that Mr. Spielberg is as worried about this country as he is about Israel."is as-" ?! Can't he just be worried about both?

On your first point, no one siad you had to give an opinion contrary to what YOU define as a "Torah lifestyle." But no one asked you for your opinion on movies either. And if movies are so assur, why did you bother reading reviews of them? If you are not issuing that ruling, say so. Quote the ones who did.

Without getting involved in the question of going to movies (personally, I don't) - there is another negative aspect to this movie. In a review by Michael Medved (a national radio personality, a leader in the "cultural" wars and an observant Jew) he pointed out that this movie equates the violence necessary to find and eliminate the terrorists who committed the Munich massacre with the terrorist act itself. This is a dangerous message - one popular with the left - that wants to find excuses for the horrific acts of terrorism here in the US and in Eretz Yisroel. Perhaps Steven Speilberg - the creator of this film - needs a lesson in the concept of "rodef".